About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

California 4, Richmond 2, Anthony 2, San Francisco 2, Us 2, Jenny 1, Borden 1, Diane 1, Brornd 1, Broernd 1, Sacramento 1, The City 1, Mann 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    January 24, 2013
    12:30 - 1:00pm PST  

12:30pm
with the notification about the project. so the department knows my address and i've gotten plenty of items from the planning department before. thank you. linda >> as i mentioned before we have a problem with having a place to meet. our neighborhood didn't have any facility only churches and there's usually a problem because they're not open at night or they charge a lot of money. that's where we used to meet when he had the money.
12:31pm
so, anyway we're going to be meeting at a church in another neighborhood. but some of us had been in the meeting on monday and the situation we saw was the selling operation for the developer. although you could ask questions like is this what we wanted for your neighborhood they were simply told that the meft church said they had this obligation for the local congregation. they tied up that this could be use for some non-profit
12:32pm
operation and i heard this was not okay to be - it's now on the agenda of the local body for this month that it is not well managed from sacramento. i heard what the board wanted to do was they would be sued by the developmenter. people in our neighborhood were threatened with subpoenas that were so what we have here is a process that we can't allow to be the normal thing. i was actually threatened by the lawyer from the church and the church was going to sue me.
12:33pm
now, of course, that didn't represent what the church had in mind. i can tell you that diane 92 son will be meeting with them. i'll have to come back and talk more about this >> further comments? sue i would like to second the request from the local sierra club that when you get to item 12 the certification of the e i r you'll not hold it over for two weeks. the documents are available for 2 weeks in advance. i further ask that the staff do
12:34pm
a much better presentation on the role of the concourse for gatherings in the city. if you will go to the back thought i example you will find a lot of the issues listed here >> i go to the craft fair and i alerted them, they were about to lose their venue and it's news to them. people who are using the space didn't know there was no notice from the city to the vendors because the owner choice not to do this and the planning development resisted the idea of asking for a list so the planning department could notify
12:35pm
them. all that in the the appendix. if we lose the concourse we liza very valuable city resource. the great festival has no place to go. k p f a has no place to go. so a realistic - i mean you were saying to the sierra club well, the bank a person can - well, i don't know if they have a headquarters anywhere. you could send the news to the headquarters and not to the individual. this is not the way the planning
12:36pm
commission works. it's not the way the city attorney should work either. so i'm asking you on item 12 when you get to it refuse to okay. the i r and kick it over to the - i'm saying you should read the comments and follow the comments and they would send me the response that's the comment and it's in black and white. i'm disappointed with the planning department if i go through with this today >> any further jenny comments. seeing none general comment is closed >> commissioners that will place you under the reggie
12:37pm
calendar where we'll be hearing item 5 for 369 third avenue request for authorization. >> good afternoon the item before you is to vacuum indicate a residential space d.b.a. as ox ton college with approximately 3 hundred 2 hundred 40 foot. this is a mass age business. it will - there will be no expansion of the building envelope. the proposed operation of the magazine age place are
12:38pm
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. >> and the project sponsors has indicated that all but not all of the people employees will be serviced by the california massage council but have the licenses for them. today, the department has received two letters from the establishment. the planning department primari primarily - >> public comment? >> thank you commissioner if i allow me to speak again? >> please state your name.
12:39pm
pardon me >> i'm a licensed acupuncture on a street locally. i have 16 massage establishment in the richmond district almost all blocks have massage districts businesses. i'm concerned when i low with massage alone every 3 blocks or so they have established massage businesses - i don't know how the regulation has been removed so, now i'm in the richmond district and - right now the
12:40pm
people in california they have issues for me and when we establish a permit people can have licensing anywhere in california and i'm concerned there are too many in the areas. there are 8 massage businesses in the area. i feel it's too many that there 16 massage establishments in the neighborhood. i want you to take a look at the commissioner and i appreciate
12:41pm
>> thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> any further comment on this item? no response it's closed. >> the gentleman addressed about the massage - >> it's actually not in the planning code but it was something in the past from the health department and i think in a couple of the last year they removed the proximateist regulation and in lieu of that there is massage criteria. so there's no where in the
12:42pm
planning code that covers over saturation >> no, it's a health code regulation. >> well based on that i don't see any reason not to approve and i see there is an area a reception he area so i move to approve the conditions. >> yes, on that thousand foot there isn't a provision in that in the downtown plan? because i know there have been past cases where in maybe it was pickup health where massage establishments were rejected or tailored to be not in combines because they were too close to
12:43pm
other massage businesses >> well commissioner i believe there might be a recontribution in the downtown area but particularly in this area there isn't that i'm familiar with. >> thank you. >> commissioner anthony. >> i did notice - there's a oversight agency that has any authority or what is it. >> in regards to that i understand the mass an businesses have a controlled state alone and if they have a state alone they can be considered like a medical
12:44pm
service establishments instead. and from here my understanding is it's basically a few people have it here but then most everyone's has to be certified to work in san francisco. you know the license that they do have there - everyone who is working there is in san francisco - >> my concern is with this project it does appear to be a legal mat magazine age business but i'm looking this list and i know of the one 195 kwechlt also looks a little bit shaky i don't
12:45pm
know why it's on that single-family aroma street. i think we need some kind of standard so we know that those are being used for legal reasons but this one seems to be fine >> yeah. i think the reference to the california - my understanding that it was created understate law by it's a voluntary program. i think the one that we should be looking at relates more to the public health licensing system in here in the city
12:46pm
>> commissioner there is a motion and a second. >> not for today's cause - case just to make sure the operation is, in fact, being conducted in the manner it's approved to be conducted i forgot how many he gave him but it seems a little bit suspicious but this is seems to be all right. >> commissioner brornd. >> i. >> commissioner chair wu. >> i and so moved that passed 6 to zero and places you under
12:47pm
item 11 and supplemental principle of law this is an action item. good afternoon i'm keith i'm the finance manager with the department. i delivered to the commission the 2012 and 2013 last week i'm going to go over it again. and secretary i do have copies for the commissioners if they'd like to follow along >> in this current fiscal years department budget we are pronl a $6 million revenue surplus and
12:48pm
the most important issue is from the high-rise and from the larger projects. that is the primary driving force. the department is - two main initiatives the first is the majority of the funding will be going toward reducing the backlog. the majority funding will going o go to 6 staff and 4 staff positions. that will be fund for 2 and a
12:49pm
half years. and also provides other funding for larger office spacing and additional guideline and documents provisions. supplemental appropriation will go toward under fund commits and the first one is the tracking system and it is currently underway. last wednesday, i did present this preemption to the historic presentation commission and they recommended principle of law and - and i'm asking for the principle of law of this
12:50pm
supplemental information. that concludes my presentation. thank you, very much. and any public comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed >> commissioner broernd that you on the motion approve? >> could someone refresh my memory as to - in terms of the planning progress and i know we've initiated the process and the department has created a plan on which the report will be based on my only - i don't remember if we have to do this - at what point did we say what is
12:51pm
the e i r not okay to go forward on this. >> we had a couple of hearings on this and there wasn't a step like we did in the past - i guess you're asking me if this was formerly vote on. the notice of appropriation hasn't even been done yet >> but there was budgeted to initiate that budget and we had grants for both the planning work and the environmental work and the planning grant program and in addition, we're teaming up with the center and we'll do
12:52pm
a study on the transportation project as well as. >> i guess i'm promoted to ask this because of the letter from john over and over link. and i'm personally not ready to endorse a project i haven't seen approved >> i want to follow up with a question you're saying there's a projected surplus. thank you mr. mann tin. that is a reasonable case that it might be brought in what happens if it doesn't? >> so at a time we are seeing just over $3 million of a revenue surplus based on the
12:53pm
current monies for the year. we would experience a $3 million surplus and it's reasonable >> so what we're asking for is 3 million not a projected 6 and. >> that's correct. >> that's correct once the money does come in we're going to make sure the money is identified for the appropriate project. >> i do have questions about the central corridor in light of the fact that theirs not enough
12:54pm
information and i'd like to have an asterisk on that particular line item. >> two thoughts on that i appreciate those comments. i did spend some time with john and what we haven't determined yet is some of the range of alternatives and we're going to look at those alternatives. one way to allow us to go ahead with this supplemental perhaps is we're not going to proceed with the i r but at least we'll have to get it budgeted and we'll try to get this to the board next week if we could
12:55pm
>> i appreciate that. we have received the letter from that there is additional concerns which were already xrepz about the central corridor when we approved the neighborhood planning and i want to make sure the scoping in any - that this would express the - i understand allowing for the asterisk >> commissioner. >> this is kind of following up about the article in the paper today. maybe not part of this supplemental but next year's
12:56pm
enforcement can we follow-up with that >> i think there is one position we're talking about and - >> at this time there is 23 positions i believe in the upcoming cycle and i'll be gifl a presentation on that. >> thank you. >> commissioner borden. >> yes. i was going to make that suggestion that we ask for the range for the alternative about the center we could address everything. i scowling process that you would do with the community >> commissioner anthony. >> i agree with the
12:57pm
commissioner but this is not before us but your actions don't have teeth so to speak unless we have enforcement we have to go through years and years about discussi discussions about this. >> in that regards to the zoning thought i railroad that's involved and what ends up happening is they all have to have i rs and we're going to
12:58pm
proceed with the funding a preferred alternative and it makes perfect sense to me to include that in the appropriation. and again, the monies that are raised but not appropriated r or go to the general fund and they can be spent at the discretion of the knickers. it sounds like a very he conservative and well-thought-out process to the situation >> i don't think revenues raced through the department even if they go through the fund are supposed to be used for departmental issues. >> we are asking for the supplemental appropriation just
12:59pm
over $3 million and what we do is go through the initial funding process the projects that come through the door we'll try to deter as much of that to the special projects. i will mention that next week as well >> back on the e i r i'll perfectly okay to look at alternatives but once a proposed project is the subject of the e i r alternatives basically are worthless to me. this commission has never adopted and said that an e i r